Film

September 08, 2014

Each year I spend the first few minutes of my Civ Pro class, as I expect so many other profs must do, showing my students the death cage match from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. The battle between the “man with no name” and the baby-faced giant, all to decide who really owns a vehicle, sets up a lively discussion about procedural justice and modes of dispute resolution.

The second day I turn away from no-holds-barred adversarial battles and towards topics that are less traditional for Civ Pro classes. For reasons that at first clearly perplex my students, we take our second day in Civ Pro to discuss a book called The Geography of Thought, written by a psychology professor named Richard Nisbett. The book collects the results of decades of research by Nisbett and others, in which experiments are run on the cognitive styles of different cultures. In particular, he contrasts the cognitive style of east Asians – such as my students – with the cognitive styles of Europeans and Americans, such as myself.

The first interesting thing about Nisbett’s results is that cognitive differences are notable in very early childhood. They are in no way genetic – Chinese Americans, for example, test as Americans after a generation or two – but they are sufficiently deeply rooted in cultures that they show up before philosophies or dogmas can be taught with any sophistication.

December 18, 2013

The second in a two-part post on my reaction to the movie "12 Years a Slave." See Part One Here.

How much of slavery’s dreadfulness do we see in our law and history? Is it enough? Americans in the founding era owned slaves. They sexually assulted slaves. They whipped slaves and they watched idly as child slaves were torn away from their mother slaves.

To be sure, our history and jurisprudence do not have to be protracted atonements for the sins of our Fathers. We have come so far since three-fifths. But as we lionize the American Founders, it becomes too easy to argue that slavery was legal and moral in its day, or that the Constitution eventually became a blueprint for equality for blacks.

In 1772, Great Britain’s highest court held that chattel slavery was unlawful in England.Revolutionary heroes must have feared England would take away their freedom not just to buy taxless tea, but to own and sell slaves.

Fast forward to the present. In a mere twenty-five years from its 2003 decision limiting affirmative action in Grutter v. Bollinger, the United States Supreme Court told us that the day of racial equality would be upon us. That is now fifteen years from today. After two and a half centuries of African slavery in America and another century of active, overt injustice, is fifteen more years enough?

In 1978, the Supreme Court mentioned slavery forty-one times in its seminal decision upholding race-conscious admissions inBakke. Just this past year in Fisher v. Univ. of Texas, which again put the practice under strict scrutiny, that number dropped to ten, all in a concurrence penned by Justice Clarence Thomas. And in Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 case dismantling the Voting Rights Act, the Court referenced slavery but once. That number may dwindle to zero the next time the Court takes on race.

We will find out soon, when it passes judgment on Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, which examines Michigan’s constitutional ban on race considerations in public university admissions. The Court, which heard oral argument in this case on October 15, will likely hold that such bans are constitutional.

The ablution of slavery from our legal precedents explains our Court’s evolution on issues of race. But have we come far enough to justify turning this bloodstained page?

The level of satisfaction we convey with our history, our Constitution, and the state of race in America may represent its own kind of “unspeakable happiness.” I cannot yet say what we must do now, except, of course, remember. Nevertheless, I feel confident that if we see this movie we might share the same answer to a most pressing question. Is this enough?

December 17, 2013

Thanks for having me in the Faculty Lounge! For my first piece, I wanted to post something I wrote soon after seeing the movie, 12 Years a Slave, which deeply affected me. It's a bit charged, but it captures well how I felt after viewing the film. I hope you enjoy it. I'll post it in two parts; the next installment will come tomorrow.

Unspeakable Happiness

Patsy is her master’s favorite. She picks over five hundred pounds ofcotton a day. Her beauty radiates obstinately through all of her sweat andsuffering. How does her master show his favor? He barely flinches when hiswife throws a whiskey decanter at Patsy’s forehead. He holds Patsy downoutside while he rapes her. When he’s finished, he slaps her hard acrossthe face. One day he finds that Patsy’s run off to a neighboring plantation. Shereturned with a bar of soap, which the mistress had denied her. For thistransgression, he orders Patsy whipped. Finally, he finishes the deedhimself, flaying Patsy’s back until there’s little skin left. All Patsy can do is ask her fellow slave, Solomon, the protagonist of thisstory, to end her life. She asks him to hold her head down in the nearbyriver until she stops struggling, until she gets the only kind of freedomthat seems within reach. Solomon’s story, while replete with similar indignities, ends more gladlythan Patsy’s. He calls his eventual reunion with his family “an unspeakablehappiness.” After all, he lived to write the tale–Twelve Years a Slave–thatdirector Steve McQueen adapted for one of this year’s most acclaimed films.I’ve never seen a film like it. More than any other historical movie I’veviewed, Twelve Years a Slave left me with a sense of being there. Foranyone who cares about American law or history, I would venture to call itrequired viewing. How did so many bystanders stand by and do so little? How could all thesepeople chant of freedom on Saturday, pray to a Christian god on Sunday, andthen on Monday, watch one human being lead another by chains on the cobbledstreets? Our understanding of American history, in particular the Constitution, mustaccount for this. Surely we try. Watching a movie like this one cannot helpbut make me think we have largely failed.

November 25, 2012

Like Al, I also watched several hours of “Gone With
The Wind” on Thanksgiving Eve (don't judge - there was a marathon!). GWTW
has fascinated me for as long as I can remember, but this time, I was most
struck by Scarlett's pitch perfect demonstration of the personality theory of
property. This is evident throughout the film, and most notably in the
last scene, where Scarlett hears the voices of her dearly departed father and
Ashley Wilkes in her head. After Rhett abandons her, she asks aloud, "What
is there to do? What is there that matters?" and the following exchange
ensues:

Mr. O'HARA: You mean to tell
me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara doesn't mean anything to you? That land is
the only thing that matters. It's the only thing that lasts.

ASHLEY: Something you love
better than me, though you may not know it.

Mr. O'HARA: Tara - this is
where you get your strength.

ASHLEY: Tara - the red earth
of Tara.

Mr. O'HARA: That land's the
only thing that matters, it's the only thing that lasts.

ASHLEY: Something you love
better than me, though you may not know it, Tara.

Mr. O'HARA: ...From which you
get your strength...

ASHLEY: ... the red earth of
Tara.

Mr. O'HARA: Land's the only
thing that matters...

ASHLEY: something you love
better than me...

BOTH: Tara...Tara!...
Tara!... Tara!

SCARLETT: Tara! Home. I'll go
home.....

Tara is the place where
Scarlett achieves self-realization. It is the place where her memories
and ambitions are rooted. It is also the place over which Scarlett
asserts an entitlement that is superior to that of either of her sisters (and fellow heirs) Suellen and Carreen (recall the great scene where Scarlett bosses the sisters
around, forces them to pick cotton, and then slaps Suellen for yelling "I
hate Tara" in the fields). I know there are some GWTW fans out there
- what other theories of property are on full display in the film?

August 11, 2012

I must admit to having succumbed to seeing the new Spiderman movie and enjoying it although I still don't think it beats the Toby Maguire version. And of course the Total Recall reboot is imminently upon us and I've heard rumors of a Jumanji reboot as well.

Why are there so many reboots of relatively recent films coming out at the moment? I understand that the Spiderman franchise was shaken up by various creative disagreements with the team involved in the previous series of movies. But what about the others? Is it cheaper to rewrite a relatively recent script than come up with new material?

And if the studios are going down the 'reboot the 80s and 90s' path, what other movies would you like to see rebooted?

June 17, 2012

With thanks to an unnamed source who drew this article to my attention, here's a link to a piece in The Guardian that attempts to explain some of those plot holes in Ridley Scott's Prometheus. I was relieved to see I wasn't the only person stumped by the meaning of that first scene.

June 07, 2012

I've just read an interview from The Paris Review with Gabriel Garcia Marquez in which he states that: "I can't think of any one film that improved on a good novel, but I can think of many good films that came from very bad novels."

He doesn't give any examples of the latter ie good films from bad novels. Can anyone think of any? Usually I think films aren't as good as the books they are based on.

June 02, 2012

Colin Miller, a law professor at John Marshall (Chicago), and a friend of (and occasional visitor to) the Lounge, asked me to make this post on his behalf:

It was recently announced that Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson will reunite for Shawn Levy’s “The Interns,” about friends who lose their sales jobs and decide to intern at a tech company to get back in the game. Although the comedy likely won’t be timeless, it should be timely given everything from Ross Perlin’s"Intern Nation" to the New York Times discussing how unpaid internships are becoming the de facto gateway to paid positions for today’s college grads.

The announcement of “The Interns” inevitably brought to mind the stillborn “Outsourced” project to which Wilson and Vaughn were attached in the 2005 afterglow of "Wedding Crashers" becoming the top grossing R-rated comedy of all time. That project would have seen the two funnymen starring as downsized workers going south of the border to get back their outsourced jobs. The “Outsourced” project would have been prescient, but not for the reason that you might think.

It’s even less surprising to claim today that movies are America’s top export than it was in 1998. The United States and Canada accounted for a shade under 50% of worldwide box office at the turn of the century; by 2011, their piece of the pie had shrunken to 31%. When "The Hangover" supplanted “Wedding Crashers” as the top grossing R-rated comedy, it did so by a mere 32.5% domestically. But overseas, “Hangover” outgrossed “Crashers” by an astonishing 150.5%. 2 years’ later, Todd Phillips’ carbon copy sequel left its predecessor in its dust, more than doubling its foreign receipts.

That sequel was filmed in Thailand, which makes sense, given that the film was about one night in Bangkok. But since 1997, the percentage of films that take place in the States and yet are shot elsewhere has multiplied. From 1980-1997, motion picture and “service activities in Los Angeles County grew at a rate of 194% for employment and 248% for businesses." But from 1997-2007, the number of shooting days in Los Angeles decreased nearly 40%. So, why did 1997 represent the turning point and the start of a literal tectonic shift that has seen studios outsource the production of countless movies just as companies have done with their production of innumerable other commodities?

May 31, 2012

My guest blogging began with a post in memory of The Band’s Levon Helm. I would be remiss if I did not circle back by sharing a hidden gem and seeking other Shmengeheads.

The Shmenge’s Last Polka is a mockumentary about brothers, Yosh (John Candy) and Stan (Eugene Levy) Shmenge, retiring from a long and illustrious career as the greatest Polka duo ever. The format follows Martin Scorsese’s classic, The Band The Last Waltz. The Shmenges were born on Second City TV and also known as the Happy Wanderers.

Unfortunately, this classic has not made its way across the digital divide and is not (yet?) available on DVD, or whatever we’re using now. Fortunately, a fellow Shmengehead posted the film in several parts in cyberspace. Here’s a part of the film with a Linsk Minyk (Rick Moranis) sit-in and banter.

Thank you to the Lounge regulars for sharing their forum and to all the readers for sharing their time. I hope to see/meet you at SEALS later this summer or somewhere down the So Many Roads we all know.

Cheers,

Joe

p.s. The last link above is to a late era Robert Hunter / Jerry Garcia song. Jerry flubs a few lyrics, but this inspired performance from the Boston Garden in 1994 is worth seven and a half minutes of any music lover’s time, at least once. For some reason, Jerry vocally wails on “to heal my soul” at the end, instead of the usual “to ease my soul.”

April 22, 2012

After watching the “Hunger Games,” I was reminded how society can get things backwards when worrying about harms to children. Despite the graphic scenes of teenagers slaughtering each other, the movie has a PG-13 rating. In contrast, movies are supposed to receive an R rating if they include sexually-oriented nudity or if they include some of the “harsher sexually-derived” expletives, especially when used in a sexual context.

This more severe treatment of nudity and profanity than of bloodshed tracks first amendment doctrine. Supreme Court justices seem more worried about the F-word and bare buttocks than about vicious violence. Just last year, the Court invoked the First Amendment to override California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors. Two years ago, the Court rejected a federal statute that outlawed "crush" videos depicting the torture and killing of animals. But in the discussion at oral argument earlier this year about foul language and indecent images on television, the justices indicated a willingness to maintain some censorship of expletives and nudity by the Federal Communications Commission.

Is it really the case that children suffer greater trauma from hearing curse words and viewing sexual images than from seeing brutal murders? Is it really true that the profanity and pornography on The Sopranos were more troubling than the cold-blooded executions that were vividly depicted in the series?

Maybe there's no harm to kids from watching people being maimed, decapitated or dismembered on the big or little screen. But surely there's no greater harm from seeing a bare breast or hearing a dirty word.

February 23, 2012

After a grueling three-week contest, we reach the final match today: The Godfather v. Lord of the Rings (The Return of the King). The former reached the title match by easily dispatching Lawrence of Arabia (66.9% v. 33.1%) (553 total votes cast). The LOTR steamroller survived a scare from Casablanca in what may have been the tightest match yet (51.5% v. 48.5%) (1,166 total votes cast). Notice the disparity between the number of votes cast in each match. Hmmmmm ....

You'll find additional info, and a place to cast your vote, on today's match-up here.

February 14, 2012

Additional info here (and cast your vote). Tough call. The film on the left shares the record (with Titanic) for most Oscar nominations (14), and it gave us one of the more memorable cinematic quotes: "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!" The film on the right is one of only three films to win Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Screenplay. And Hannibal Lecter is one of the more unforgettable villians in film. Given the release dates of the two films, though, I anticipate an easy win for The Silence of the Lambs.

Yesterday's result? Casablanca (83%) defeats Platoon (17%). Next up for Casablanca? The winner of today's match. I'm anticipating that Casablanca will make it to the "final four," with a trip to the championship game riding on its ability to defeat the winner of the Gone With the Wind / Lord of the Rings (Return of the King) match-up.